Re: This is not a conlang.

And, yes, I am *way* behind with the list.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:10:35 +1030, Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating
Dragon) <dragon@...> wrote:

> How many conlangers find it easy to produce nonsense syllables that
> mean nothing in any language, real or invented, yet have the
> appearance (e.g. the cadence and phonetical variation) of real
> speech?
I have something like Tourette's, and a common symptom of mine is the very
same phenomenon. It's generally from the same large phoneme set, which I
shall try to reconstruct for your entertainment...

p p_h b m mb)
t_j (or maybe c_+) t_j_>
t_> t d n nd) r\ 4 r
d` n` n`d`) r`\ r`
c J\ c_>
k_j
k_> k g N Ng)
q G\ N\ N\G\)
l 5 K K\ K\d) K\_Gg)
?\ ?
I i\ M u 7 @ V O A a

Plus a variety of sibilants that are not easily distinguished using the
IPA. There's all that slitted/slotted/grooved/whatever terminology in
action.

Syllable structure is CV, plus optional word-final C. "Words" are almost
all polysyllabic, and often quite long. There might be a complex
vowel-harmony scheme in existence (possibly back vs close, but it might
not be that easy). I haven't really ever tried to analyse it before.

I suppose it behooves me to try to make a language out of it, just in case
my hind-brain is trying to tell me something.




Paul